familyguy wrote:I don't, however, believe MHL's are being forced by people who enjoy their helmets so much they can't go without them. They appear to be put forth more by people who are usually involved in the repair and care of persons injured without them. Would you agree with this statement of personal observation (again, based on no empirical evidence)?

I did too The zob. I found the anti MHL here to be fanatical to the point of irrational. And try to have your own opinion or choice contrary to their own and you're selfish or stupid. Flame suit on.

It's definitely best not to get involved in the discussion here. However there is some entertainment to be had in posting the results of the latest research and watching the logical contortions that result. I've read about cognitive dissonance, and so it is interesting to see it in action. I'm sure I do it myself too, but it is so much harder to recognise it in your own thinking.

I did too The zob. I found the anti MHL here to be fanatical to the point of irrational.

After getting back into cycling, I spent some time rethinking helmet laws after reading the arguments here and elsewhere. What I found was that the anti-MHL case is seriously weakened by the tendency for the issue to attract total nutballs as advocates.

To be clear, I don't mean anyone here, or anyone who reconsiders the wisdom of MHLs.

I'm talking about the CRAG guy - it's just one guy - who is likes to cite "the latest scientific research" only to link to a pdf that he wrote himself. Yes, really. His entire site is full of anti-scientific muddle-headed thinking, with an intense skepticism of the mildest prospective benefits of helmets only matched by a boundless credulity for the most far-fetched helmet dangers.

Would you be surprised to learn that the reason we have helmet laws is that it's a hugely profitable conspiracy perpetrated by the helmet lobby?

On the respectable academic side there was research published by UNSW academic -and anti-MHL campaigner - Dr Chris Rissel that showed that helmet laws caused cyclist injuries. Until the paper was formally retracted for egregious data errors - cherry picking the stats to make them say what he wanted. Formal retraction of a research paper is no minor issue for an academic. It's a career-sinker.

I'm not sure what it is about the topic that makes the crackpots and nutballs flock to it like seagulls to a picnic. Sure, there are responsible, respectable anti-MHL advocates as well - but man, they have a heavy burden to carry with these guys on their side.

The zob wrote:Who cares about the rest of the country and whether they'd ride or not? What's it to you?

I do - and for completely selfish reasons. What I really want to see is a reduction in motor car usage and one important way is through substitution or car journeys with bicycles. This would enhance my safety as a cyclist and as a pedestrian and that of my family. It would also improve my quality of life and that of my family e.g. through less pollution, better use of state resources. It also improves that chances for my children to have the same quality of life I've enjoyed so far. ANY measure that can get more people riding is a good thing in my mind. YMMV

The zob wrote:[Who here realy believes that the way to promote cycling is to show up at the local primary school and tell parents that their 7 year old is better off without a helmet?

All that trawling and link hammering and THIS is what you believe the pro choice people are saying in this thread?

Wow, just wow.

Well, I'm pretty stupid

What I believe is that the pro choicers don't want to wear helmets. Simple.

That statement I made is a reference to what I see as the hopelessness of portraying that choice/need/desire as anything other than that. A simple, single dimensional desire to do what they (pro-choicers) want. No skin of my nose (geddit? Huh? ) either way. Like I said....I'm pro choice You want to take the chance that the helmet's not gonna help, go nuts I'd really rather that my household total of 4 cylists weren't used as a statistic to support either side is all.

The zob wrote:What I believe is that the pro choicers don't want to wear helmets. Simple.

Your belief is contrary to most of the evidence presented. I am a pro choicer and I am a strong advocate of the benefits that helmets bring. I CHOOSE to wear my helmet in many sports where there are no mandatory helmets.

What amazes me is how simply naive so many Australian cyclists are regarding cycling in the rest of the world. In the places where cycling is most common place, helmets are rarely seen.

Last edited by human909 on Tue May 07, 2013 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The zob wrote:What I believe is that the pro choicers don't want to wear helmets. Simple.

Your belief is contrary to most of the evidence presented. I am a pro choicer and I am a strong advocate of the benefits that helmets bring. I CHOOSE to wear my helmet in many sports where there are no mandatory helmets.

What sports? I thought we were talking about cycling? Sorry.....I'm confused now. Do you or do you not want to wear a helmet on a bike?

What amazes me is how simply naive so many Australian cyclists are regarding cycling in the rest of the world.

OK....Ken's reply about his family and local area I can see. But who cares about the rest of the world? How is it that I'm not up to scratch if I don't know about "the rest of the world". Are you ashamed of the rest of us or what?

Ostracized. Treated like second class citizens. Not given the same rights and respect. Hmmmm, the existence of the "One & ONLY Helmet Thread" says it all.

Yeah? See my last post

Nah...I'm just jokin about. You boys take this way to seriously in my opinion. That's one of the reasons I have to stay out of threads like this Come down to Elizabeth St when we start, say G'day. I'm a freindly sorta dude. I'll even let ya ride down my incomplete Bicycle Segregation Lane That's Copenhagen treatment for heathens like me

The zob wrote:What sports? I thought we were talking about cycling? Sorry.....I'm confused now.

Sorry to confuse you but I can't talk about having the choice in cycling. Something about mandatory laws and all that.

The zob wrote:Do you or do you not want to wear a helmet on a bike?

It isn't a question with a binary answer. If given the choice I would sometimes choose not to wear a helmet. But the fight isn't about getting ME cycling it is getting OTHER people cycling.

The zob wrote:OK....Ken's reply about his family and local area I can see. But who cares about the rest of the world? How is it that I'm not up to scratch if I don't know about "the rest of the world". Are you ashamed of the rest of us or what?

Because for best cycling practices one should not look for Australia as guidance. We are abysmal in cycling participation and safety.

Zob, perception is where it's at and that's the problem. Because we have laws which claim that cycling is so dangerous that we have to enact legislation to force us to wear a helmet, going to a bunch of kids and their parents and saying their kids should ride bikes with or without a helmet goes down very badly. The helmet laws create the impression that cycling is a very dangerous activity. This is an inaccurate impression. Cycling is quite safe, certainly no more dangerous than many other activities which do not require a helmet. If this was really about comparing the relative safety of various activities, given over 50% of head injuries are suffered by occupants of cars, then car helmets would also be compulsory. It's not just the inconvenience of helmets which has an impact on cycling, it is the image of cycling as an activity which is so dangerous that you need head protection which impacts upon cycling numbers. Would you want your kids undertaking an activity which is so dangerous they are legally required to wear a helmet?

You are at least partially right about some anti-MHL advocates who want the law removed because we don't want to wear a lump of foam on our heads. I'd count myself amongst those who don't want to wear a helmet. I consider cycling to be a safe activity (yes, I do cycle on main roads, I commute) and I do not consider a helmet to be necessary in most situations. I certainly consider that I should be able to make this choice for myself as I am able to do in just about any other activity. Why am I denied the choice not to wear a helmet? Cycling just isn't dangerous enough to justify this law, but this law certainly fuels the myth that cycling is very very dangerous, and all those who support this law are supporting the view that cycling is a particularly dangerous activity.

Furthermore, if it is so dangerous and we need to mandate head protection, why aren't those supporting this law calling for it to be strengthened and making soft shell helmets illegal, surely hard shell helmets offer better protection. Or is it just that you lot don't want to wear a bulkier hard shell helmet?

newie, you can't claim "logical contortions" when you have done nothing to support the research. I pulled it apart. I've studied research methods, I've written scientific reports, and I spent a lot more time on statistics in a number of fields than I am comfortable with LOL

Posting up someone's paper is only the start. The entire purpose of the Scientific Method is to put ideas and results under the blowtorch, to find out what is true. Someone mentioned Rissel's antihelmet paper that was retracted. If it's garbage, that's OK. That is the Method working well. Constant improvement and motion towards the truth is the key. It is dispassionate, and criticism is part of the game. I provided valid criticism. You provided a thinly veiled swipe at me and those who agree with me. Who is the real scientist here? Who is the zealot? The person who fails to engage, and essentially does high level trolling?

There are some logical breakdowns in the MHL for cycling. I can be convinced that the MHL is a fair and valid law once those logical breakdowns are addressed. MHL for car occupants is a great start. If it saves lives, who are you to question?

Zob, you need to take a small step back and appreciate that this thread is huge and many things have been discussed. Being a fresh participant doesn't give you the right to be glib when the answers to your questions have been given 5 times already in the last 12 months. We will answer any question you have, but understand that you might need to clarify and ask further questions. All worthwhile intellectual pursuits take time :1:

This post illustrates, obliquely, why this whole debate is in the toilet. We have argument from authority. We have the same old non sequiturs (lack of a helmet law for motorists didn't matter last time, or the time before that). The same old question-begging I see no compelling argument for getting off the fence. Still. The facile arguments didn't convince me, nor did the volley of snide remarks.

Hightea, your post indeed sums up why you shouldn't bother. Standing on the sidelines, and refusal to acknowledge valid challenges to the evidence presented, pretty much makes for the exact behaviour that is attributed to those that are disagreed with.

There has been nothing I can see that refutes or engages with my response to the study - namely, that the study doesn't address the fact that effectiveness of helmets for cyclists vs motorcyclists has very little to do with the legitimacy of legislative compulsion to wear them, especially when advocates and sympathisers for the MHL won't acknowledge that peds or car users would equally benefit from wearing a helmet as a cyclist. It does make me wonder how many people are actually cycling at this forum, and how many are just stirring the pot.

It does make me wonder how many people are actually cycling at this forum, and how many are just stirring the pot.

Seeing as how I'm the new bloke, I might as well answer this Started riding again a month or so again after a 9 year break. I'd be what's called a recreational cyclist I guess......I'm doing it to lose weight and gain fitness because I enjoy it. I only ride maybe 30-40 minutes per morning (any more and I'm kackered ) and 2-4 hrs at a go Saturday and Sunday. Slowly and with time to look around me and enjoy the scenery. Bike paths, main roads (Northern suburbs Melbourne), anywhere really. Day or night.That probably doesn't qualify me for an opinion as you stated earlier......but I stopped letting myself be bullied back in Kindy, 44 years ago....except by the wife, that is

There has been nothing I can see that refutes or engages with my response to the study - namely, that the study doesn't address the fact that effectiveness of helmets for cyclists vs motorcyclists has very little to do with the legitimacy of legislative compulsion to wear them, especially when advocates and sympathisers for the MHL won't acknowledge that peds or car users would equally benefit from wearing a helmet as a cyclist.

I have no issue with acknowledging that peds and car users would benefit from wearing a helmet. A suit of unobtanium armour would go even better. But "equally" as much as a Cyclist? No. There's no way in hell I'll agree that a helmet is "equally" beneficial. And I'd bet that the majority of the general community would agree with me. I'd also bet that faced with that argument, the majority of the general community would look at the proponant of any such statement with a little more amusement than is normal. Note.......I'm not even interested in statistics, studies or any supporting evidence that exists to back that assertion. As far as I'm concerned, it will be skewed to favour the proposer's agenda. Yes....that's right. I have already decided that it is silly to even bother reading it. As will the majority of the population. (Doubt it? Then why aren't the Greens in power? )

Helmets/no helmets is not an "intellectual" pursuit to most people. I have no doubt it is for you, and I can respect that....but it isn't for me. And many others. And you need to respect that. You don't want to wear one? Ok by me. I don't care. But you seriously believe that no helmets will increase the take up of cycling in this country? Good luck with that

Now we get down to this bit.....

Cycling just isn't dangerous enough to justify this law, but this law certainly fuels the myth that cycling is very very dangerous, and all those who support this law are supporting the view that cycling is a particularly dangerous activity.

Yes. I believe that cycling in some situations for some people is dangerous. And anything that can be done to mitigate that risk is good. I'm not going to shove that opinion down anyone's throat (hey....any OH&S reps here? Safety comittee members? Maybe they can give us their opinion on whether or not wearing helmets on cycles would be mandatory if cycling was a workplace activity? Like a Grand tour for example ).....but I will take that attitude in my own house, with my own children. And I'd expect others to raise their children as they see fit. But don't be telling me that I'm doing something wrong, because it's none of your business

I reckon you've seen all this before so I'll leave it here. Oh...wait....

Would you want your kids undertaking an activity which is so dangerous they are legally required to wear a helmet?

As I've said already....yes. Why not? Just because you have to wear a helmet doesn't mean you're gonna die. Sheesh....bit dramatic this attitude innit? "oooo....you have to wear a helmet!!!!! This is soooooooo dangerous..." C'mon man.....give it up. That sort of argument lets you down

Xplora wrote:Hightea, your post indeed sums up why you shouldn't bother. Standing on the sidelines, and refusal to acknowledge valid challenges to the evidence presented, pretty much makes for the exact behaviour that is attributed to those that are disagreed with.

What's the alternative? Uncritical acceptance of nonsense, and there's plenty of that on both sides of the debate, doesn't sit well with me. You've posted some shocking nonsense in this thread, not that you're alone in that. So here we are. You can complain about it, or lift your game.

There has been nothing I can see that refutes or engages with my response to the study - namely, that the study doesn't address the fact that effectiveness of helmets for cyclists vs motorcyclists has very little to do with the legitimacy of legislative compulsion to wear them,

Oh, I took that as a given.

especially when advocates and sympathisers for the MHL won't acknowledge that peds or car users would equally benefit from wearing a helmet as a cyclist. It does make me wonder how many people are actually cycling at this forum, and how many are just stirring the pot.

I wonder the same thing when I come across claims like this:

"Cyclists should reasonably assume that they will be more protected by a helmet than a motorcyclist because they cannot propel themselves to the same speeds as a motorbike rider. A moto is likely to hurt arms and collarbones etc more than the head because they are going faster."

That's a fairly outlandish claim, don't you think? There wasn't even any need to make it. Had you said "Helmet efficacy != helmet law efficacy" and left it at that, I couldn't agree more. That is, or should be, a given.

As to the oft-repeated claim that "peds or car users would equally benefit from wearing a helmet as a cyclist", OK, let's assume it's so. What follows from this? Nothing, that's what. So why keep bringing this nothing argument up?

Xplora wrote:newie, you can't claim "logical contortions" when you have done nothing to support the research. I pulled it apart. I've studied research methods, I've written scientific reports, and I spent a lot more time on statistics in a number of fields than I am comfortable with LOL

OK, against my better judgement, I'll bite. Firstly though - it is not my place to support the research. This is a peer-reviewed journal article which simply presents some data. As I am not sure people here have the same access to the journals as I do it makes sense for me to supplement the news report with the info from the journal itself. As I have said several times before in this forum, I am not necessarily a MHL supporter and am open to be being persuaded it should be repealed, if there is decent evidence for it.

Xplora wrote:Study failure lol

First issue - this not a study failure. This is simply a study presenting the results of an analysis of accident statistics in hospital admissions. It does this. No failure there. All the authors do in their opening paragraph is state that the context is with regard to the fact that MHL exist in Australia and therefore head injury statistics are an important and relevant topic to study. They do not say that they had a hypothesis about MHL or head injuries that they were trying verify. There is no scope for failure there. You say you have "studied research methods" so this statement of yours baffles me.

Xplora wrote:1. Cyclists should reasonably assume that they will be more protected by a helmet than a motorcyclist because they cannot propel themselves to the same speeds as a motorbike rider. A moto is likely to hurt arms and collarbones etc more than the head because they are going faster. This is not a reasonable argument to build on cycle helmets on, because it fails to acknowledge the reasonableness of acquiring a head injury on a bike. Speed, collision details and intoxication were not controlled for. That's a HUGE amount of variation. We have to acknowledge that cyclists aren't going to break as many collarbones or necks because the lower speed will mean more head impacts as a percentage of overall trauma - because there are less leg/arm/torso injuries to balance that out.2. We have no comparison data for pedestrians or car users. Perhaps cyclists were similarly expensive to peds? Anyone can run SPSS on a dataset. It's REALLY easy to find significant results if you are obtuse enough.3. This is a very thin correlational study comparing moto helmet use to cyclist helmet use. It has no bearing on an MHL argument (the opening paragraph FOCUSSED ON THIS) because there is nothing conclusive to draw. I can equally demonstrate that fat people should be banned, because they are clearly more expensive than thin people in a hospital context. It's a pointless exercise. Accidents are inevitable across a population. How likely they are, how reasonable is it that they bear responsibility for those accidents, do most people feel that the accident is likely if they personally perform the activity, these are the key questions.

All of this discussion you have presented is not particularly relevant to the main result of the study which was that non-helmeted cyclists were over 5 times more likely to suffer a head injury than helmeted cyclists and the costs of their medical care was greater. This result is very relevant to the MHL. It is interesting that this is even greater than the effect in motorcyclists. It may not be a surprise to you that this is so, but for some people it would be and worth noting. But not worth making a big deal over one way or the other and the authors do not do so. The authors then openly acknowledge the limitations of their study and then suggest that it forms a part (but not the whole) of the evidence in support of MHL.

Studies like this will be incomplete and have flaws, as any scientific study is. However, unless they are completely discredited (a la the Rissel paper), they form part of the story. One reason I don't choose to engage in further debate here is because it is clear to me that studies like this and the one I posted some time ago mean that the MHL will never be repealed in Australia. There is no politician in this country who will support repeal after being told " a study of hospital admissions showed that unhelmeted cyclists have 5x the rate of head injuries". There is plenty to argue about statistics and side issues. But let's look at the pure raw data. There were 110 cyclists in the study. 40 unhelmeted and 70 helmeted. 30 out of the 40 unhelmeted cyclists suffered head injuries. 27 of the 70 helmeted cyclists suffered head injuries.

Some time ago I spent quite a bit of time putting together a post outlining what I though was a coherent and sensible set of evidence required for an anti-MHL movement to be successful. Those issues are the ones I am looking for to be addressed here and which will persuade me. All the other stuff that gets discussed here is mostly missing the point in my opinion. I don't feel the need to post again and again saying the same thing over and over again, or repeating the excellent points that others have made before me.

You're right though, my remarks were probably more snide than they should have been. This forum topic really does bring out the worst in me - one of the other main reasons I keep vowing not to participate.

newie wrote:it should be repealed, if there is decent evidence for it.

There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that not having MHLs is not detrimental to safety. And there is ZERO evidence to suggest that having MHLs is beneficial to safety.

Sadly Australian cyclists and legislators continues to look their own myopic view.

Well, let me pose this question: assume that MHLs aren't working. One solution is to repeal them. Another is to consider ways of improving them. For example, is compliance a problem? That study that everyone's in such a huff about reported non-trivial numbers of un-helmeted cyclists, so it's at least plausible on its face. And how many "helmeted" cyclists were wearing old, damaged or poorly fitting helmets? Things like seatbelt and DUI laws, where the benefit is well-settled, have been constantly refined, and pushed pretty hard with both enforcement and publicity. This hasn't happened with MHLs (I suspect because cycling just hasn't been on the agenda, historically speaking). My admittedly subjective impression, is that I've never seen helmet wearing publicised or enforced to anywhere near the same extent as, say, DUI. Point is, are we talking about a good concept badly implemented?

While I'm at it, my recollection when MHLs came in was that a helmet cost $30, at least. The price has halved since them, so it's gone down more than that in real terms. They've also gotten a lot more comfortable. Why, I recently found a helmet that actually fit properly! That didn't cost hundreds!* And helmet-wearing has become normalised, at least to some extent. How much of the postulated effect on participation has gone away because of this and other factors, I wonder?

I freely admit that these are questions that I can't answer for want of data. I do contend they're interesting questions, though.

* It's easy to be impressed by these things when you've gone into a hat shop and asked the question - deadly serious - "Does this come in a size bigger than XXL?"

high_tea wrote:Well, let me pose this question: assume that MHLs aren't working. One solution is to repeal them. Another is to consider ways of improving them. For example, is compliance a problem? That study that everyone's in such a huff about reported non-trivial numbers of un-helmeted cyclists, so it's at least plausible on its face.

Say What?

Since when was compliance a problem? No the problem is that the solution is not applicable to the problem.

Furthermore it is a draconian law that impinges on basic freedoms without any justifiable reason.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.